Anyone see Bush's speech last night from the convention?

[tres-b]

If you talk to Dems, you would think that the whole Enron deal started when Bush took office.

[sobeton]

They haven't cut off funding to tbe domestic backers of Al-Queda? They haven't rounded up terror cells on our soil?

Give me a break...the commission is a farce as well...everyone forgets that the WTC attacked in 1993...where was the commission then? What was done about them? Oh wait, Bubba couldn't do anything wrong besides keeping with dick in his pants and gettin head in the Oval Office by some fat chick...but somehow people "forgot" that.

"the commission is a farce" umm okay.. they have limited funding sources; they have not cut them off completely. they have rounded up members of terrorist cells.those cells operate independently. these are admittedly good efforts from the Bush administration. there was no commission in place after the 1993 attacks; perhaps there should have been. after the attacks in 1993 both the CIA and FBI ran separate investigations, but never shared that information. that should have never happen, and you cannot lay the fault on Clinton solely. also Clinton was actively hunting Bin Laden, or did you forget about the investigation that lead to wiping out the 1999 millennium attacks plan, the bombing of terrorist camps in afghanistan after the attack on the african embassy, he killed efforts by al qaeda to form a base of operations in bosnia, clinton increased funding for counterterrorism operations, etc.. less not forget the briefing from clinton’s top aids prior to leaving office with Condoleeza Rice; advising of the very real threat of more attacks on US soil. so clearly, Clinton was doing more then chillin with Monica... some how people forget that.

under Bush since 9/11: have we increased funding to states, so they have the tools they need to deal with domestic terrorism? have we attempted to secure our borders with more qualified and better trained people? have we insured that the CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence, etc share information? etc? etc?, etc?

[mindfaqd]

under Bush since 9/11: have we increased funding to states, so they have the tools they need to deal with domestic terrorism? have we attempted to secure our borders with more qualified and better trained people? have we insured that the CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence, etc share information? etc? etc?, etc?

and this stuff is gonna get done under Kerry ? I think not.

[tres-b]

".. less not forget the briefing from clinton’s top aids prior to leaving office with Condoleeza Rice; advising of the very real threat of more attacks on US soil. QUOTE]

That Clinton failed to do anything about during his term b/c he was too busy trying to avoid impeachment for committing perjury.

[JonStephen]

and this stuff is gonna get done under Kerry ? I think not.

You might THINK not...but thats speculation

We all know that IT HASNT AND IT WONT under Bush....proved by fact

[bigpoppanils]

u DO know that most of the money skimming at Enron happened during the Clinton administration and the administration that IS going after them IS the Bush administration?

did you also know that the administration blamed the high electric prices in California on environmental regulations and not Enron manipulating the market (which they admitted to)?

[mindfaqd]

You might THINK not...but thats speculation

We all know that IT HASNT AND IT WONT under Bush....proved by fact

ok then I'll speculate some more.............

Almost none of Kerry's promises will come to fruition if he is elected.

and now for some fact.........

He changes his aims and goals for this country with ea/ and every group he speaks to. He's a flip-flopping little bitch.

How the hell can u trust someone like that ?

[igloo]

"there was no commission in place after the 1993 attacks; perhaps there should have been. after the attacks in 1993 both the CIA and FBI ran separate investigations, but never shared that information. that should have never happen, and you cannot lay the fault on Clinton solely. also Clinton was actively hunting Bin Laden, or did you forget about the investigation that lead to wiping out the 1999 millennium attacks plan, the bombing of terrorist camps in afghanistan after the attack on the african embassy, he killed efforts by al qaeda to form a base of operations in bosnia, clinton increased funding for counterterrorism operations, etc.. less not forget the briefing from clinton’s top aids prior to leaving office with Condoleeza Rice; advising of the very real threat of more attacks on US soil. so clearly, Clinton was doing more then chillin with Monica... some how people forget that.

You could not be more wrong or misguided.....

For the sake of keeping it short, I will point to one of your statements---the bombing of terrorist camps in Afghansistan after the embassy bombings did more to embolden Al Qaeda than kill anyone is the mostly empty camps.........

This response by Clinton was a distaster, and did nothing but enforce bin Laden's message that the U.S. was a paper tiger and their people lack the will and the resolve for a "fight"....the response had extreme negative repercussions towards later events.......

As a whole, the Clinton administration was an absolute disaster in confronting a growing and gathering danger......an absolute disaster.......from 1993 to the time he left office......yes, he increased funding, yes, the millenium plot was stopped (but that did nothing to spur action by him)......but overall, the Clinton approach was a complete failure....

Now the first Bush and even Reagan made mistakes fighting terrorism....but Clinton was a disaster........there is no disputing that. I am not saying that because I support Bush and not Clinton...I say it because it is fact, and there are plenty of books out there written by terrorism experts and investigative journalists who ALL have the same objective conclusion....

And let's not forget that the Congress, CIA, and the Pentagon during Clinton years' all have their share of blame as well.......but the Clinton Administration was awful.........

[pookie23]

You could not be more wrong or misguided.....

For the sake of keeping it short, I will point to one of your statements---the bombing of terrorist camps in Afghansistan after the embassy bombings did more to embolden Al Qaeda than kill anyone is the mostly empty camps.........

This response by Clinton was a distaster, and did nothing but enforce bin Laden's message that the U.S. was a paper tiger and their people lack the will and the resolve for a "fight"....the response had extreme negative repercussions towards later events.......

As a whole, the Clinton administration was an absolute disaster in confronting a growing and gathering danger......an absolute disaster.......from 1993 to the time he left office......yes, he increased funding, yes, the millenium plot was stopped (but that did nothing to spur action by him)......but overall, the Clinton approach was a complete failure....

Now the first Bush and even Reagan made mistakes fighting terrorism....but Clinton was a disaster........there is no disputing that. I am not saying that because I support Bush and not Clinton...I say it because it is fact, and there are plenty of books out there written by terrorism experts and investigative journalists who ALL have the same objective conclusion....

And let's not forget that the Congress, CIA, and the Pentagon during Clinton years' all have their share of blame as well.......but the Clinton Administration was awful.........

couldn't have said it better myself!

[anotherway83]

Honestly I care more about Terrorism than big business at this point. Big business isn't gonna wrap explosives around them or fly planes into our buildings. That's what I care about the most - and God help us if Kerry leads that front cause if he does, we'll be blown to bits!

this is a classic example of the Republican propaganda machine doing its job...by drowning us in a barrage of anti-terror slogans (WAR WAR WAR!! TERROR TERROR TERROR!!!) they hope they'll make ppl. forget all the more pressing issues such as the economy (millions of job lost, and the few new jobs coming in aren't paying nearly as much), healthcare (tens of millions of ppl. without healthcare, and it looks like its only gonna get worse), a sky-high deficit (dont forget how the surplus evaporated under bush's misguided economic and foreign policy adventures), a war that the vast majority of the WORLD's population is AGAINST (not to forget most Americans as well, i hope you havent forgotten the massive protests on the eve of the Iraq war??), not to mention how our relations with our allies have only gotten worse...

and besides, even if you are concerned about your safety from terrorists, you should still be against bush getting re-elected because already they're talking about going after Iran...this stupid war has only helped to incite more hatred and resentment in the arab world against the US...there are more bomb blasts and innocent civilians dying there BECAUSE of the US invasion everyday...do you really think this has made the world a safer place? if yes then by all means vote for Bush...but im sure most Americans are bright enough to realize whats best for them and this country

[igloo]

this is a classic example of the Republican propaganda machine doing its job...by drowning us in a barrage of anti-terror slogans (WAR WAR WAR!! TERROR TERROR TERROR!!!) they hope they'll make ppl. forget all the more pressing issues such as the economy (millions of job lost, and the few new jobs coming in aren't paying nearly as much), healthcare (tens of millions of ppl. without healthcare, and it looks like its only gonna get worse), a sky-high deficit (dont forget how the surplus evaporated under bush's misguided economic and foreign policy adventures), a war that the vast majority of the WORLD's population is AGAINST (not to forget most Americans as well, i hope you havent forgotten the massive protests on the eve of the Iraq war??), not to mention how our relations with our allies have only gotten worse...

and besides, even if you are concerned about your safety from terrorists, you should still be against bush getting re-elected because already they're talking about going after Iran...this stupid war has only helped to incite more hatred and resentment in the arab world against the US...there are more bomb blasts and innocent civilians dying there BECAUSE of the US invasion everyday...do you really think this has made the world a safer place? if yes then by all means vote for Bush...but im sure most Americans are bright enough to realize whats best for them and this country

[mindfaqd]

and besides, even if you are concerned about your safety from terrorists, you should still be against bush getting re-elected because already they're talking about going after Iran...this stupid war has only helped to incite more hatred and resentment in the arab world against the US...there are more bomb blasts and innocent civilians dying there BECAUSE of the US invasion everyday...do you really think this has made the world a safer place? if yes then by all means vote for Bush...but im sure most Americans are bright enough to realize whats best for them and this country

So we should ignore the terrorist threat because its pissing off people in terrorist countries? Why don't we just pull out of all the arab countries and then point the satellites the other way so they can team up and eventually come up w/ something bigger than 9/11 ? I agree that the Republicans are firmly focussed on the terror threat. But I would hate to put all those other things ahead of our own safety. While we are solving economic problems they will be building schemes to kill us ! Let Bush march thru every arab country and eliminate the threat across the board. I don't give a fuck if we piss off some rich towel heads in the middle east. If it keeps me and mine safe, FUCK 'EM !

[jtk4]

nice comeback.

when clinton attacks it enrages the terrorists, but when bush attacks he is saving us from terrorists.

So the 1993 bombing is clintons fault because it happened on his watch, but 9-11 is also clintons fault because bush didn't have time to stop it because he was just elected. Wait wasn't clinton just elected in 1993 wouldn't that make it bush sr fault.

you people are great

[jtk4]

Enron was clintons fault because all that book-cooking was happening while he was in office.

Lay chaired the host committee for the 1992 Republican convention in Houston, where Bush's father won his second presidential nomination. And Lay was a sleepover guest at the White House of President George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush and Enron Oil and Gas were in business together in 1986--when Ken Lay was head of Enron. Campaign records show Lay donated three times as much money to Bush in that race as he did to ann Richards in the race for governor. Lay has been in "bed" with the bushs since the mid 80's.

This is fact not make believe propoganda. To say this is not shady is a lie

[anotherway83]

So we should ignore the terrorist threat because its pissing off people in terrorist countries? Why don't we just pull out of all the arab countries and then point the satellites the other way so they can team up and eventually come up w/ something bigger than 9/11 ?

no, all i'm saying is that there are MUCH better ways of handling the threat...for instance - stop blindly supporting Israel in its oppression of the Palestinians...alot of terrorist organizations site US's support of Israel as their main grudge against the US...now im not saying we should abandon Israel but we have got to be more impartial...

I agree that the Republicans are firmly focussed on the terror threat. But I would hate to put all those other things ahead of our own safety. While we are solving economic problems they will be building schemes to kill us ! Let Bush march thru every arab country and eliminate the threat across the board. I don't give a fuck if we piss off some rich towel heads in the middle east. If it keeps me and mine safe, FUCK 'EM !

dude thats exactly what im saying...if we act in such a manner WE WILL NEVER BE SAFE! EVER! it'll just keep pissing more and more ppl. off...don't you see what's happening in Palestine? the Israelis do this all the time to the Palestinian ppl, they raze their crops and houses at will, saying "we're going after terrorists", they make life hell for the Palestinians, and are they safe? practically every month theres a bomb blast in Israel and innocent Israelis get killed...it's a never-ending cycle, violence begets violence...so what makes you think that the US will be able to get away with doing the same thing to other countries? sooner or later, if we dont change our belligerent tacticts, the terrorists will bring the war home...

the reason Bush says "war on terror" and not "war against iran" or any country in particular is because it gives him the leeway to invade any country anytime he wants using the pretext of eliminating terror threats...and keeping people's minds off domestic issues...it is a tactic tyrants have used over and over again in history...

[anotherway83]

its time for you to wake up and smell the coffee as they say...you've been asleep too long

[jtk4]

So we should ignore the terrorist threat because its pissing off people in terrorist countries? Why don't we just pull out of all the arab countries and then point the satellites the other way so they can team up and eventually come up w/ something bigger than 9/11 ? I agree that the Republicans are firmly focussed on the terror threat. But I would hate to put all those other things ahead of our own safety. While we are solving economic problems they will be building schemes to kill us ! Let Bush march thru every arab country and eliminate the threat across the board. I don't give a fuck if we piss off some rich towel heads in the middle east. If it keeps me and mine safe, FUCK 'EM !

Kill them all. Lets just nuke the place. fuck it.

[pookie23]

Kill them all. Lets just nuke the place. fuck it.

...nuthin but cockroaches and earthworms should be left standing!!

I like that policy

[kramadas]

...nuthin but cockroaches and earthworms should be left standing!!

I like that policy

You do that and unfortunately, that's exactly what will be left standing on the earth you and I are standing on right now.

SO, do I think you are going to make that decision for me - I don't think so.

[jtk4]

then we can set up interm governments that will do everything we want then to, while we steal money in the form of reconstruction. We can then hope to have more and more countries to harbor or support terrorists so we can blow them up too, then repeat, and in the end the united states will have no more problems. Shit sounds good show me where i can vote for that.

I mean really fuck everyone. What are they going to do, really. Even if most countries disagreed they wouldn't say it publicly because we might put an embargo on them, or maybe just bomb them to. No one can fuck with us, we can't get invaded we are more powerful then 3/4 of the country combined. Who really gives a fuck what the hell people think in other countries. What the hell have they done for us? absolutly nothing! Whatever money we make from Iraq or anything else we fucking deserve for bailing all these fuckbag nations out. You think we did it for free? Hell no it was a loan fuckers now we want our fuckin money plus intrest paid in full.

The only reason people hate us is because they are jealous, shit we are the best fuckin thing to happen to this planet since the fuckin asteroid killed the dinos. We control it all so you better like it and get with the program, if not you will find your self on the wrong end of a bradley with a 50 caliber while you hide and try to piece together enough rocks to throw. Bow down bitches, we are rome, england, and the huns all wrapped together and we ain't going anywhere.

now i didn't see bushes speech but was it something like that?

[mindfaqd]

Kill them all. Lets just nuke the place. fuck it.

not a bad idea at all. I'd say nuke em back to the stone age but most of them are already there.

[jtk4]

I mean when has anyone from that part of the world ever contributed to society? The educated world would be much better off if we just killed them all.

you all have to be kidding right?right?

[mindfaqd]

you all have to be kidding right?right?

Actually, I retract my last statement about nuking the place but I do fully support our occupation of the middle east and if we need to press on into other countries to flush out terrorists, so be it !

[jtk4]

what flush them out to other countries? Then what occupy them? If they were in soth korea, would you try to occupy them? Or china? Or india? Or pakastan? And if by occupying these countries creates more terrorists against us in other countries what then? Shit we have occupied afghanastan for what 2 years how has that worked out? We really got those terrorsts and whiped out the taliban there haven't we? Wait no and before we could finish we take troops out and move nto Iraq. Good idea right?

[sobeton]

the usual everyone is misguided, wrong, a failure, and not qualified to handle terrorism but the republicans. God bless the republicans! I don’t know what this country would do without them.

You could not be more wrong or misguided.....

For the sake of keeping it short, I will point to one of your statements---the bombing of terrorist camps in Afghansistan after the embassy bombings did more to embolden Al Qaeda than kill anyone is the mostly empty camps.........

This response by Clinton was a distaster, and did nothing but enforce bin Laden's message that the U.S. was a paper tiger and their people lack the will and the resolve for a "fight"....the response had extreme negative repercussions towards later events.......

As a whole, the Clinton administration was an absolute disaster in confronting a growing and gathering danger......an absolute disaster.......from 1993 to the time he left office......yes, he increased funding, yes, the millenium plot was stopped (but that did nothing to spur action by him)......but overall, the Clinton approach was a complete failure....

Now the first Bush and even Reagan made mistakes fighting terrorism....but Clinton was a disaster........there is no disputing that. I am not saying that because I support Bush and not Clinton...I say it because it is fact, and there are plenty of books out there written by terrorism experts and investigative journalists who ALL have the same objective conclusion....

And let's not forget that the Congress, CIA, and the Pentagon during Clinton years' all have their share of blame as well.......but the Clinton Administration was awful.........